Yeah I agree, after a certain point in time bundle games should be marked as not bundle after their respective bundles have ended.

Ya this would be a nice thing. I have steam gift copies of games that I bought a while back and then they became bundle games. I think 6 months would be a good length of time after the bundle.

Agreed. After a certain amount of time it wouldn't make sense for someone to try to create a giveaway for something like Psychonauts using a Humble Bundle V key, especially since getting it on sale somewhere would be so much easier. Pretty much all of the games in older Humble Bundles go on sale for less than it would cost you to get the bundle. It's such a shame that something like this stops people from giving away a lot of great indie games. :/

Though other games should remain in the bundles list, due to how easy it is to get dupes of them. Especially stuff from Indie Gala, which you can get a fuckload of if you're willing to wait for a happy hour to buy 'em.

+1

+1

Sadly, that's too ripe for abuse. While you're probably correct that there probably aren't many people holding onto keys from HIB V, the problem is if this is a known feature moving forward, people WILL hold on to them for six months (hell, I know I would).

My problem with the current system is that the HIB V games shouldn't have been in the bundle list to begin with. You get ONE key for LIMBO, Amnesia, Sword & Sworcery, and Psychonauts, and ONE key for Super Meat Boy, Lone Survivor, and Braid. If someone JUST gives away Braid, then you know it's not from HIB V. Now I know the argument is that people will just choose the most expensive of the group and do a giveaway for that and then hope that the winner doesn't report them, but I still think it's a crappy system.

Great idea bobo! +1

Great idea bobo! +1

Agree with you bobo.

Not sure about this. Have a feeling people will simply hoard keys to exploit the system.

Who's to say what is intentional exploitation anyway. Looking at all the Special Ops/Crazy Machines giveaways on at the moment, there's a fine line between giving (which is the lifeblood of this site) and exploiting a loophole (large scale bundle gifting in the absence of the current bundle key rules), and I wouldn't want to make that judgement call.

Don't get me wrong - I'm definitely not having a go at people giving away games. I've given away my fair share of bundle keys too. I just think that this sort of ruling muddies the waters, and plays into the hands of the sizeable chunk of users on here who are hell bent on playing the system and who, given an inch, will take a hundred miles...

Chances are, many of those people who instantly give away bundle keys the moment they become permitted will wait 6 months, so we will have a delayed flood six months down the track. There's no real win here.

Bundle keys only became allowed in the first place because too many people broke the rules to try and boost their contributor status. This change would simple re-introduce the problem that the current bundle rule was set in place to avoid, and potentially end up with Support inundated with problems trying to judge whether individuals are exploiting the system or not, in addition to aggrieved users who don't feel they've been treated fairly.

I'm sure I will get flame grilled for this post judging by the support the idea has garnered, but I'm ready and waiting with my fire-retardant vest, so bring it on :D

Either that or the system can check your Steam inventory and if the game is in there it's not counted as a bundle. Doesn't help much with keys from Gamersgate, Amazon, GMG, etc. but at least is someting.

interesting.. i've been wondering about that.. been too lazy to check and now will probably do something else with my amazon extras keys

yeah, I agree. the * list is kinda pointless for some bundles(like humble bundle which fuses keys (or indieroyale which isn't really that bad)) anyway(others of course like indie gala's 5 games for $1 are of course much more unbalanced than sales)

when compared to steam sales it doesn't actually stop what it was meant to anyway.
(Recently I could have given NecroVisioN as $2 cost and be recorded as giving $20(so is $4 for $40 in my donor score) but could not have given the 4 steam games from indie royale at minimum cost $5 at 42 credit(added up steam values for the games in indie royale evolved bundle) even though it'd have been 20% more efficient to do necrovision vs indieroale to pad stats) (even worse was the indie store bundle last month that oddly wasn't marked. but thats a different story as it really should have been)
only reason for that is its impractical to discount the value of everything thats ever been on sale but there are fewer bundles so its possible to track them. and thats probably why they stay listed forever too. it'd take more time and effort to remove them(since they have to be added manually anyway) and to figure out how long, and/or to check for the games where it'd be obvious if it were bundled for example humble bundle gives a single code for all those games it isn't divided up so if the code is for 5 games instead of one it'd clearly be hib and if it were the game alone clearly not(you'd be depending on the winner to report/complain about getting extra which he'd be unlikely to do, but again thats like $20 for $1 tops which galastore does unmolested) besides people'd just keep them til after the limit ran out anyway.

so the asterisk thing is pointless, my one change to sg would be either removing or completely redoing how it works. it misses bundles that are perfect for abuse(galastore) it ganks bundles that aren't even abusable at all(hib) and restricts some that are weaker than sales so why bother(royale)

+123187412461642194361421412

You've my vote :)

yh at the rate that new bundle sites are popping up, if the bundle list stays permanent eventually it will come to a point where there will be no indie games given away on the site.

Honestly, I'm in full agreement on this one, for all the reasons you've stated.

+1

You can do that with this add-on. Works beautifully.

Use the addon?

+1

+1
Great idea

Support doesn't approve very much of blacklisting people, or maybe it's sharing the blacklists/making them public. Something like that.

+1 sir

+999999

The add-on does that

hide owned games

Or better yet, a page where it keeps track of all the threads you've replied in, regardless of whether or not you got a reply from someone.

Agreed. I comment all the time and usually forget to go back and read the thread again later. For example, I probably wont ever read this to see if anyone else agrees with you. ;)

+1

You could buy a game instead of donating and create a giveaway? :p

+1

Yeah, because there is not enough of it already in the internet. :)

+500. Causes nothing but constant bitching.

-1

-1 more leechers would join

+1

+9001

+1. This system is just being exploited most of the time. And leecher joins anyway, because they are those who exploit the most. I've seen a guy spending 8$ to get 160$ contributor value. So what the point anyway.... leecher are complaining on the forum "bwaaah i've only got 30$ contributor for my 1$ bundle game" etc. So it's pointless to justify the contributor value only as an anti leech system. Besides, i prefer a leecher, than an artificial contributor just giving game to raise his contribution only to get the best games. This system is stupid.

I partially agree, just make the contributor mark for someone who has contributed a game or maybe a minimum value like $50

Because from what I see, people buy large packages when they're on sale; wait for the sale to end then contribute it so they gain contributor value really fast (notice all the serious sam complete packs going for $90) people abuse this to get into the higher contributor values just so they can enter the few giveaways up there.

Anyway I personally just disagree with it, a veteran give-away would be fine. Limit give-aways for how long they've been members to steam; this could prevent "leech" accounts on big game give-aways.

+1

Yeah, reply notifications on giveaway comments is probably the #2 thing I would change.

+1

+

+1 :)

Only one option allowed? Hmmmm... tricky.

+3
It's good to see someone on the chain of command speaking their mind.

dev accounts can enter giveaways?! That's not cool.

about the second one, wouldnt it be easier if developer giveaways dont add contributor value?

I agree with B & C.

I don't like A, for me there is no point making public giveaways if I can't set a contribution value.

A lot of the games you've won had less than 5 entries you egregious abuser. J/K :P I can't say I agree w/ A. The rest I'm all for.

A) Definitely, I think it encourages all the wrong gifts and giving.

To further develop on point A, change contribution value into amount of games or dlc given, and abolish user determined values in giveaways and make the options either "contributor - people who have given games" or "everyone".

I know it sounds ridiculous, but I think it's better than gaming a value system (just check the front page right now).

B & C <3

B. Sooooooooo much B. the others too but good God, B.

What about setting a max contributor value based on the game's price. For example:

Game A is $15 so the max contributor giveaway would be $15.
Game B is $40 so the max contributor giveaway would be $40.
Game C is $30, but the person is giving away 3 copies, so the max contributor value would be $90.

I sort of like the idea of rewarding contributors in some way (speaking as someone who hasn't contributed any games yet). What i don't like is the crazy contributor values, which have no bearing on the game's value.

A and C, agreed. B, I don't see the problem (maybe I'm missing it).

B for

o

Bama

I would give my left kidney if B could be implemented in near future

Against A, I want to support those people who have given something back to community...

B, is needed, also this should apply to someone who has begged keys from devs...

C: Should help with some abuse.

a) I dont think this is a good idea to get rid of this (maybe you can lower the max amount of contrib value). b) I dont mind either way
c) Yep, from my point of view, this is a must!
+
-you should add some "agree/disagree" button. It`s annoying to see such a huge amount of "+1" posts

B so hard!!!!!!!!!! Serious, I dont want to see this devgiveway contrileecher anymore...

A) I'd rather see a removal of group giveaways, as that's how most of the abusive tactics occur. Or at least only allow group giveaways for Public Groups. Sure they can get around it with private giveaways (which I don't advocate removing because of the puzzles), but I think it'd help.

B) Agreed wholeheartedly. Nobody should be able to inflate their contributor value just because they got some dev keys that cost absolutely not money - it's essentially like exploited keys.

C) I'd be all for this as well, though I think part of that would be solved with the removal of group giveaways.

He pretty much does that already.

Huh? He gave tons of games recently.

Just joking but I'm pretty sure this site makes waaay more than a couple hundred bucks. 10 Bioshock Infinite games = $600. This site probably makes thousands per month.

Maybe he doesnt know who the owner is? :)

Do you really want to encourage more spam in forums?

There was, for a few days, a web-chat but I think cg very quickly ditched it for some reason.

Group and Private ga doesnt make any sense.

That would be kind of cool.

+1 cg please do this

My God that's, genius.

Lol this sounds fun! :D

+1

+1
Yes! That'd be kind of a fun addition to the site. An addition to that idea - It'd be nice if they made it to where you couldn't enter if it was a game you already owned, to keep people from wasting their points. Or just make it to where it doesn't show up for you. :p

Not big on the idea of being entered into a mystery giveaway automatically just because I happen to have 300 points and then only getting half those points back if I don't want/already have the game. And even if I want the game, just the fact that it takes all my points to enter it, even if it gives me a 1 in say 5, I wouldn't want to do it, cause I could easily enter far more giveaways (more then likely the same game) in normal giveaways.

This would give people who just let it build up and do nothing to win stuff.

And then you have the 300 points gone for a chance at a 1 point game.

No thanks

Wouldn't you get a bunch of trolls putting up Fortix for 300 points?

+1 but maybe not with 300 ponits, a little bit less like 200

+

This sounds like a lot of fun. The only issue I see with it is entering for a game I already own. I'd still have the option to decline, of course, but it would be more of a disappointment than just getting something you won't play.

+1 hillary wins again

+1

I'd have way too many notifications for this.

That'll just encourage a shitload of guessing and calculating and speculation threads. As long as the underlying system is there, hiding the value won't help anyone.

Also, you can calculate it based on the games you gave away. Rughly at least.